Democracy: Noun
1) A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
2) A state governed in such a way.

The United Kingdom, also known as Great Britain, has a Democratic government. Or does it?

A Democracy is a Government in which officials are elected by the people of the country, to carry out the majority's best interests. This makes the country fair and the standard of living for its citizens the best they can be.

We do not live in a Big Brother state, where the Government makes decisions for us, regardless of whether the people disagree or not... Or so I thought...

A survey which was conducted by Pew Research Center, found that 52 percent of people nationwide in the UK favour legalising Cannabis, while 42 percent oppose it.

However, despite the majorities obvious interest in legalising cannabis, our Prime Minister, David Cameron had something else to say. Mr Cameron said “I don't support decriminalisation. We have a policy which actually is working in Britain."
Now, by "working" Mr Cameron means drug use is on the decline, but that doesn't change the morality of the issue.

Alcohol use is as high as ever, and it is greatly more damaging than Cannabis. Despite the publics cry for legalisation, Mr Cameron won't even consider decriminalisation, which is far from legalisation. Surely if this was a Democracy, the peoples interests would surely be followed, let alone considered?

It's not even at the benefit of the people, our economy would greatly benefit. CLEAR, a website for the legalisation of Cannabis, tell us:
"Authoritative research from the Independent Drug Monitoring Unit proves that a cannabis tax and regulate regime in Britain would produce a boost to the UK economy of at least £6 billion per annum. That’s based on a cannabis tax of £1 per gram, massive savings in law enforcement costs but allowing for the cost of administering the system and providing additional healthcare and education services. All the evidence and experts agree that a responsibly regulated system would also reduce all health and social harms."

It's not just from the use of Cannabis recreationally that could benefit our suffering economy. Cannabis is the most efficient producer of biomass in the natural world, the strongest natural fibre, a better fabric than cotton, a better paper than wood and one of the most ecologically important activities on the planet. The anti-cannabis propaganda has led to shunning all of these beneficial components of the the plant.

I call on the Government of the UK to look into the reclassification, decriminalisation, and legalisation of Cannabis. Not just because it's what the people want, but because it would be hugely beneficial to our economy and society, and, so we don't get left behind in the dust by more modern countries such as Holland, Portugal, and some states of the USA.

I urge you to share this with your friends, family, and if you happen to be Nick Clegg, Mr Cameron.

According to a few google searches, the 52% statistic refers to people who want its status downgraded, not legalised. An ipsos mori survey found that only 40% of Britons would support a system where it is legal to possess a small amount of cannabis, like in Portugal.

You're using the common motion that "alcohol is much more harmful than cannabis". That's an empty argument. Just because something else is harmful, doesn't mean you should automatically legalise everything that is harmful.

Like everyone else, you use try to add legitimacy to your argument by claiming that it will help the economy - as if that's the most important thing in the world. There are a ton of things that would generate money but that doesn't mean they're right. Besides, you're picking statistics from a pro-Cannabis site. Find some statistics from a neutral source or they're virtually invalid.

Cannabis is a harmful drug, it has been proven to increase the likelihood of mental illness and it acts as a gateway drug to Heroin et al. It doesn't matter if Cannabis would stimulate the economy; it is a harmful drug and people should not be consuming it, for their sake and for the greater good of the public. Cannabis has been found to be behind a huge number of crimes so the ban not only protects people themselves but the public.

And don't give me nonsense about cannabis being the "strongest natural fibre, a better fabric than cotton". You don't care about that at all! I'm fairly certain that those claims are picked out from thin air and besides, that's an incredibly minor use if it is a use at all. If you're going to argue pro-cannabis, at least be truthful and admit that the reason is because you want it for recreational purposes.

Finally, what are you talking about "being left in the dust by more modern countries"? Holland and Portugal are both very small and only 2 states out of 50 have legalized the recreational use of Cannabis in the US. Meanwhile, the majority of the rest of the world, including the 48 other states of the USA and practically all of the large European and Asian powers ban it.

The government wouldn't be able to tax it efficiently. Tobacco and alcohol are hard to produce, so we need companies to do it, therefore it can be taxed. Anyone can grow cannabis in their back yard, so why not avoid tax and do that instead? Given that economic incentive is the only reason the government seem to do anything, it won't be legalised any time soon anyway.

(Original post by TOMwelcomesYOU)
The United Kingdom, also known as Great Britain, has a Democratic government. Or does it?

A Democracy is a Government in which officials are elected by the people of the country, to carry out the majority's best interests. This makes the country fair and the standard of living for its citizens the best they can be.

Which is exactly what happens here. Case pretty much closed.

We do not live in a Big Brother state, where the Government makes decisions for us, regardless of whether the people disagree or not... Or so I thought...

A survey which was conducted by Pew Research Center, found that 52 percent of people nationwide in the UK favour legalising Cannabis, while 42 percent oppose it.

Your elected representatives run the country. They are not some sort of conference delegates to simply pass on public opinion. We have a parliamentary democracy where largely far cleverer than average people discuss things based on the best evidence that can be found and make decisions based on that.

I sometimes disagree with the judgements they come to, but I accept them. Because although the system is sometimes imperfect, it is the most effective working system we are capable of devising.

(Original post by tjf8)
The government wouldn't be able to tax it efficiently. Tobacco and alcohol are hard to produce, so we need companies to do it, therefore it can be taxed. Anyone can grow cannabis in their back yard, so why not avoid tax and do that instead? Given that economic incentive is the only reason the government seem to do anything, it won't be legalised any time soon anyway.

most people simply cant be bothered growing it...doing so is pretty difficult if you want a good product, and it is time consuming as well as quite expensive, and it smells too. Most people would prefer to go buy it in tesco or a tobacconist

So I have a debate coming up and we are opposing the motion that marijuana should be lagalised in the UK.
Unfortuantely I am pro marijuana which makes this all the more difficult.
Does anyone have any ideas on what i could say and views on the topic?
Anything is welcome!

(Original post by Ggmu!)
It's the opposite. Industries such as the paper, pharmaceutical, building industry would be heavily damaged by an inexpensive crop that performs the same function as their legal substitutes.

I DO NOT SUPPORT/CONDONE THE USE OF ANY ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES. I DISCOURAGE THE USE OF ANY ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

(Original post by Ggmu!)
It's the opposite. Industries such as the paper, pharmaceutical, building industry would be heavily damaged by an inexpensive crop that performs the same function as their legal substitutes.

I DO NOT SUPPORT/CONDONE THE USE OF ANY ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES. I DISCOURAGE THE USE OF ANY ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

(Original post by Ggmu!)
It's the opposite. Industries such as the paper, pharmaceutical, building industry would be heavily damaged by an inexpensive crop that performs the same function as their legal substitutes.

I DO NOT SUPPORT/CONDONE THE USE OF ANY ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES. I DISCOURAGE THE USE OF ANY ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

Expand on your point please, I do not understand the inextricable link between the building industry and marijuana industry that you are presenting.

Hypothetically, putting economics first: Infrastructure in terms of building would provide jobs. The 'dealers' would be regulated and restricted by the Government, and most importantly, be heavily taxed. Just like the tobacco and alcohol industry. The power of barbaric drug cartels would be lessened. The drug industry, whether an individual wants to face it or not, is a billion dollar industry. People aren't not using marijuana as of now, when it's illegal, and they will continue to use it whether it's legal or illegal. If we legalize it, the number of people using it will not change. The money gained from taxation and infrastructure could then be pumped into the crippled NHS that is struggling to keep its chin above the water when it comes to drug rehabilitation and treatment programmes.

Of course, socially and morally, I strongly oppose it. It sends a terrible message, sets a dangerous precedent and not but least, it stinks. However, it's naive to assume these implicate on the economic hypothesis.

Theres really strong stigma in society against the drug, despite it arguably being safer to use than alcohol. I would put a lot of this stigma down to fear rather than science. Forget economics, what would be the social disadvantages?

(Original post by confused_101)
thanks! so, by legalising it, it shows that the government care more about its economy than the people with it

Precisely. And the tobacco industry is your perfect example to justify this. Nobody can argue tobacco does not hinder health, yet it's still a legal industry. The Government care far more about the economy than health clearly, or they would ban it. But economic stability is essential, and making tobacco illegal would catapult us into an economic stagnation. The same principle applies to the alcohol industry. The Government rely on them, and the same would happen if marijuana was legalized.